the Evangelists and Apostles, never enjoined this institution, and that there is neither profit nor propriety in the ordinance, as now observed, your writers and preachers continually teach, and your universal practice unequivocally proclaims..

The objections to this ordinance you have too often heard to need a repetition; the arguments in its favour, I fear, some of you have never weighed. Whether you have or not, on such an important subject. let me entreat you, weigh them once more. How can you answer the argument drawn :—

First. From the Institution and express command of Jesus Christ? The authority of any one of the Evangelists,, to all who believe their inspiration, is a sufficient voucher for any fact. But on this subject, three have given their decided testimony, see Matt. xxvi. 26, Mark xiv. 22. and Luke xxii. 19. The passages are too long to quote, but too plain and too well known to need quoting. That the Saviour really took material, bread and material wine, and said "Take, eat, this is my body;-this is my blood, drink ye all of it" "this do in remembrance of me," you cannot but admit. Here then we have the institution and a command to observe it. If you prefer the term "request" to "command," I have no objection! for a request from a dying Redeemer, to all who love him, will equal a command. Object. He only request"He ed them to do it at that time, and not to continue it after his death." Ans. Where then is the force of the word "Remembrance?” Does it not refer to things past, and imply that, according to the form he now gave, they should keep it with deep interest after his death? At present they could not "remember" his death (which was the chief thing represented by the feast) as that death had not yet taken place. If you say, "it was a mere spiritual remembrance he required," you neglect the force of another word in this command: Do "this"-what I now do-take material bread and wine, and eat and drink corporeally, while in spirit you remember the things signified by the broken bread and poured out wine. He does not merely say, "Remember me" but "do this in remembrance of me." If here is not a command to observe an outward ordinance, I know not in what words it could have been expressed. Again, if the Lord Jesus did not intend to continue, and did not attach much importance to this ordinance, account, if you can

Secondly. For his revelation and repetition of it, some years after, to the Apostle Paul. The Apostle declares, Gal. 1. 12: that he received all his doctrines "not from man, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." And in 1 Cor. xi. 23. he says he received this very ordinance, in the very words and form given in the Evangelists, from the same divine authority. "For I received of the Lord Jesus, that which I delivered unto you,

&c." Here is sanction upon sanction to authorize our celebration, and condemn your neglect of this solemn feast. How do you account

Thirdly. For its observance by the primitive Church? We have every reason to believe that the first converts to Christianity, especially the Gentiles, took their ordinances as well as their doctrines immediately from Apostolic lips. Now we find Christians every where observing this feast. At Jerusalem we find them "breaking bread from house to house." (Acts ii, 46.) Iso at Troas, (Acts xx. 7.) "On the first day of the week the disciples came together to break bread, and Paul preached"-and (v. 11.) "broke bread." Can any one suppose that the Lord's day would be appointed for any common meal; or that the holy Apostle, ready to depart on the morrow," would spend his time in eating and drinking in any other than a sacramental way? But in the Epistle to the Corinthians we have decisive proof. More than twenty years after the death of Christ, we find the Corinthians celebrating and the Apostle regulating this feast 1 Cor. xi. 23-34. He here says expressly, that he had delivered" it unto them. And in 1 Cor. x. 16. he speaks as if it was the common practice of the whole church, "the cup which we bless, the bread which we break, is it not the communion of the blood and body of Christ ?"-in contradistinction from idolaters, who drank the cup" and partook of "the table of devils." Here then we have the practice of the primitive Christians and the sanction of the Apostles many years after our Saviour's death. Do your teachers better know the will of God than the Apostle Paul?-or have you received some new, additional and contradictory revelation? He received of the Lord Jesus" to "deliver" this ordinance unto us: have you "received of the Lord Jesus" to set it aside? If not, we intreat you, keep this feast :-for

66

Fourthly. It must be continued till Christ come again. If Christ had not told us it should be perpetual, since his blood was shed and his body bruised for us as well as for the primitive church, reason would teach the propriety of our using the symbols of his death as well as they, But he has not left us in any doubt or darkness on the subject. The Apostle hath expressly told us, 1 Cor. xi. 26. to keep this feast until he come." I am not ignorant of your interpretations" until he come to destroy Jerusalem-until he come by his Holy Spirit-until he come with full illumination and establishment in the faith;" but to these constructions I never can assent. Not to the first, because the destruction of Jerusalem had nothing to do with the repeal of ceremonies, all such having been repealed at the death of Christ ;not to the second, because he had come in this sense, on the day

of Pentecost, twenty years before ;-nor to the third (which is your main defence,) because the phrase is never thus used else where in scripture, and it is a mere gratuitous assertion, to say that it is so used here, and because the apostle Paul was certainly an established christian, and had full illumination, and yet he observed and delivered this ordinance. Besides, suppose Christ does come to a christian with as full illumination as he ever came to man, or comes to any of you, why should this supersede the ordinance. “Our distinct knowledge and ardent love of Christ would supersede the necessity of memorials."-And can the views of any lovers of Christ be more distinct, their love more ardent, than were those of the twelve Apostles, who heard him, saw him, handled him for years, and loved him more than life? And yet to these very twelve, he gave these memorials! If needful and useful to them, are they not needful to you? So long as he withholds his visible bodily presence, so long these striking emblems of himself will never cease to be of use to his holiest followers. The "coming," therefore, of which he speaks, is not his coming by his spirit, but his visible appearance at the last day, to call the world to judgment, and take all his chosen to himself. The ordinance therefore, was intended to be perpetual, or to the end of the world.

In conclusion, I would draw an argument

66

Fifthly. From the utility of this ordinance. This appears from its nature and design. First, it is a sign and seal of the divine covenant. "This cup is the New Testament (or covenant) in my blood ;" just as he said of circumcision, (Gen. xvii. 10, 13:) This is my covenant" which shall be in your flesh," as if he had said, "This is the sign and seal of my covenant." The Lord's supper is a seal on the part of God, to fulfil all the promises, and on ours to perform all the duties of the covenant of which it is a seal. Thus it operates as a powerful stimulus to duty toward ourselves, and faith towards God.

Again, it is useful as an exhibition of the doctrine of atonement, (as baptism is of the doctrine of the Trinity.) So often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show forth the Lord's death." And I cannot but agree with Doddridge, that, "so long as an ordinance which has so plain a reference to the satisfaction of Christ, and does such honour to this fundamental doctrine of the gospel, is continued in the church, so long it will be impossible to root that doctrine out of the minds of plain humble christians by any little artifices" or Socinian criticisms. And I cannot but think, if you administered and explained this ordinance to your people, the now almost banished doctrine of the cross and of imputed righteousness would soon be honored and restored.

Lastly, this ordinance, as well as baptism, is useful as a badge of Christianity. One object of these ordinances, was to separate Christ's followers from the world, to make them visible, and compel them to profess the essential doctrines of his gospel. And though I have no doubt there are many saints in heaven and earth who never wore these badges, I have my doubts whether such form any part of the visible christian church. If the mere acknowledgment of a God, and some vague profession of religion constitute a social body a church, why not give this title to the Masonic Lodge? (I mean nothing invidious to you, or disrespectful to them.) They make a general profession of religion, reject atheists and sometimes deists from their institution, -have a strictly moral and even religious code of disciplineare bound by the strongest ties to mutual love,-are very charitable to their own, and even other poor-they sometimes pray, exhort, and what you do not, they sing; in short, when they have members present, whom the spirit moves, they haye as many religious exercises as yourselves. Why not call them a christian church? Suppose again a set of sober deists should be organized and agree to meet on the first day of the week, (not because it was holy time, but because it was the custom of the country,) should pray and praise, and preach, and perform other duties of natural religion-why not call them a christian church? Because, in admitting to membership, they do not make it essential to believe or profess a single doctrine peculiar to christianity. Now, what you require your members to profess, I do not know; but this I know, you could not properly observe these ordinances without requiring faith in the doctrines of the trinity, the divinity of Christ, and his vicarious atonement for the sins of the world-doctrines found in only one religious system upon earth.

PAUL.

Seventh-day, 6th Mo. 23, 182T.

LETTER IV.

WHEN I commenced writing for the Repository, I hoped that the parties engaged in the present discussion might perhaps give such explanations, of their respective views and sentiments, as would promote the harmony of different religious professors, that they might by exhibiting sufficient ground for mutual forbearance, increase a spirit of amity and benevolence. "Harsh expressions," I have determined to avoid-they can do no good, and may do much harm. Innuendo and invective in religious

discussions, always hurt the cause they are intended to support. TRUTH needs no such weapons. A "spirit full of love," would not use them. They excite the passions and disqualify either for calm reflection or deep investigation. In my preceding Essays, I have endeavoured to sustain the character of a candid and dispassionate writer-with "Paul" I have no quarrelmy aim is to elucidate our views. In the pursuit of this object, if my observations should sometimes assume the form of a "preface," at others of an "apology," I cannot see in such a circumstance any cause of offence.

In my last number, I gave some of my reasons for believing that the zeal which has been excited on the subject of foreign missions, is unseasonable; as the subject is important, I will pursue it a little further, and endeavour to show that it is also misdirected.

When our Lord was about to introduce the Gospel dispensation, it pleased Divine wisdom to send a messenger before him. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight." The doctrine he preached to the people, even to those who were to be the instruments of spreading the gospel among the heathen, was, "Repent ye for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." I have thought that this circumstance might indicate to all future generations the necessity of outward and inward purity in those who undertake to spread the Messiah's kingdom. Purity of life, and innocence of deportment, a practical conformity to the precepts of our Lord are the most efficient means of raising the low expectations of the visited, and removing the most obstinate prejudices. Without these the vallies cannot be exalted, the mountains be brought low, the crooked things made straight, or the rough places smooth, Luke iii. 5.

Now let us pause a little and contemplate our actual state.--Let us see how far we are governed by the laws of that very kingdom we are engaged to extend-how far we are willing to do justice at home, and to extend this divine government through our own land. Here we see One million five hundred thousand of our fellow creatures unjustly held in a degrading bondage, which is entailed on their innocent posterity. Here we see those who appear to be anxious to spread the Bible among the heathen, ten or fifteen thousand miles from us, pronouncing fine and imprisonment on those who have dared to instruct this benighted branch of the human family in our own land. We are manifesting great anxiety for the welfare of immortal souls beyond the Atlantic, but great indifference about those within our own shores-Strenuous efforts are making to send help abroad, whilst the most important field that can possibly engage our at tention remains a dark howling wilderness at home.